Talk Elections

I,d say Warren in spite of Harris,s baggage.

Warren.

If I were Trump supporter I'd be dying for the Dems to nominate Warren.

Why is Elizabeth Warren supposedly such a weak candidate?

Harris actually. Warren has problems with authenticity, but I actually think Harris is worse in that respect, and she doesn't really have any issues that define her or inspire voters. That could change as things go on, but as it stands, Warren is in a stronger position

Warren but Trump would defeat either easily.

Its not gonna be an easy campaign, we dont know how the shutdown will end. The victor of the shutdown will have bragging rights.

But, Warren has been labeled by Trump

Both would be pretty easy relatively for Trump but I would say Warren

Trump would lose to Harris. I'm very uncomfortable with Warren being the nominee.

Harris.

Warren's a white you see. Also she energizes the base.

With Harris, better hope for some kind of Hillary-esque turnout in Miami-Dade combined with Gillum's Jacksonville...and Sinema's Maricopa Co., because that puts The Midwest back into play.

Harris is expecting to announce tomorrow her candidacy for Prez.

And Harris doesn't? Also why are we assuming we need Arizona and Florida to win the presidency. Arizona is not synonymous with Pennsylvania. Dumb take.

PA is not enough


Trump still wins 270-268 with the 2016 map - PA and MI. So the Dems have to win either AZ or WI to win the WH

Not really, no. At least Warren has the whole "nevertheless, she persisted" thing going on.

We're not, we're assuming those are insurance in case Trump successfully holds WI/MI/PA again.

Everybody saying this candidate energizes the base and that one doesn't, but....do you guys really think the Democratic base would sit out the election regardless of the nominee and allow Trump 4 more years?

I think Trump energizes the Dem base more than any of the candidates that oppose him do.

Agreed.

Pardon me if I don't trust the american electorate to vote against the buffoon no matter what, when we were all told, sometimes with one hundred percent certainty (Huff Post), that they would in 2016 and how it actually went. I personally know a democrat that would vote for Trump if Gabbard was the nominee, so yeah.

As a Trump voter, I hope for Warren. Harris, Booker and Castro wouldn't be too bad either, IMO.

Biden and Bullock scare me a bit.

Precisely!  Everyone always overstates the importance of the individual names at the top of the tickets.  What will matter in 2020 isn't Trump vs. Warren or Trump vs. Harris....it's Republican vs. Democrat.

This obviously might not hold true if some out-of-the-mainstream name were nominated (Gabbard, for instance, or maybe Sanders), but for the most part, party is vastly more important than individual.

Once more sh**t comes out about her time as Cali AG millennial/minority turnout might be depressed

You're saying that because that's what you want to happen.

Warren. Harris is a formidable candidate and he may lose in that scenario.

All right, then put up Hillary Clinton and see how well that works out.

It's not even about energising "the base", by the way. It's independent voters too: they delivered us Trump in 2016 and they'd sure as hell do it again if they don't see anything great coming from the Democrats

Warren might not be able to get out the person of color vote as well as Harris would, for that reason alone Warren would be easier to beat. Furthermore, Warren has been a bigger focal point of the right wing propaganda machine and is damaged much more than Harris is at this point in time.

Warren, obviously.

This. Harris would be able to mobilize minority voters and would do very well among suburban voters. Warren is a polarizing figure, with her economic positions being too far left for many suburbanites, and she does not have the same kind of appeal to minority voters. Moreover, I think her "Pocahontas" controversy would hurt her more.